gtm_list_accounts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a key constraint—'the service account can access'—which implies permissions scoping. However, it does not mention read-only nature, response structure, or error handling, though the simplicity of a 0-parameter list tool mitigates this gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless, simple list operation, the description conveys the essential function and scope. It assumes domain knowledge of what GTM accounts are, which is acceptable. The return format is not described, but for a simple list tool, this is a minor omission. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly requires none. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List,' names the resource 'GTM accounts,' and adds a precise scope ('the service account can access'). This clearly distinguishes it from a generic listing tool and matches its name. It effectively differentiates from the sibling 'list_account_summaries' by focusing on accounts rather than summaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_account_summaries.' It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. While the purpose is clear, an agent receives no help in choosing between this and similar list-oriented tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.